Cardinal Gregory calls for prayer and peace after unrest at US Capitol

San Francisco, Calif., Mar 16, 2019 / 04:50 pm (CNA).- Facebook has announced that it will begin using AI software to prevent and restrict the distribution of non-consensual sexual material – also known as revenge porn.

In a March 15 statement, … […]

Bishop Thomas Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield, Illinois, speaks with EWTN’s Raymond Arroyo on “The World Over with Raymond Arroyo” on March 2, 2023. / EWTN screenshot

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Mar 3, 2023 / 15:40 pm (CNA).

In the wake of new restrictions on the Traditional Latin Mass, two American bishops spoke with EWTN’s Raymond Arroyo Thursday about how their dioceses have responded.

Bishop Thomas Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield, Illinois, and Archbishop Joseph Naumann of the Diocese of Kansas City, Kansas, both defended the Traditional Latin Mass communities within their dioceses during their interviews on “The World Over with Raymond Arroyo” March 2. 

Pope Francis issued a motu proprio titled Traditionis custodes on July 16, 2021, which put heavy restrictions on the Traditional Latin Mass. The order directed bishops to designate locations for the Traditional Latin Mass but stated none of the locations should be within parish churches. Because a lot of dioceses already had thriving Latin Mass communities within parishes, some bishops offered dispensations, which allowed those Masses to continue as before.

Cardinal Arthur Roche, the prefect for the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, issued a rescript on Feb. 21, which is a formal clarification from the Vatican. It stated that such dispensations are reserved to the Holy See and ordered bishops who had issued those dispensations to “inform the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, which will evaluate the individual cases.”

Paprocki said during the interview that he questions “the wisdom” of the rescript and suggested that it “seems to contradict what Pope Francis himself said when he issued the motu proprio,” which Paprocki interpreted to say that bishops had discretion to decide how to implement the restrictions “on a case by case basis” within their dioceses.

In addition, Paprocki questioned the legal basis for not allowing the dispensations already granted by bishops to remain in effect.

“I would argue Canon 9 says that laws in the Church are not retroactive, so any dispensations that have already been given remain in effect,” Paprocki said. “But I would also recognize the validity of this new rescript and the restriction that is being placed upon diocesan bishops.”

Paprocki added that these judgments are best made by the bishop based on the principle of subsidiarity, which maintains that “decisions should be made at a local level” unless there’s an overriding reason.

“I’ve yet to see what that reason would be” in the case of these dispensations, Paprocki said.

Instead, he said, “you’ve got a prefect in Rome basically making decisions about what’s happening in the local diocese and the local parishes.”

When the motu proprio was originally issued, the Diocese of Springfield had two parish churches that offered the Latin Mass. Paprocki noted that one of the parishes has a priest from the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP), which was given a dispensation from the Vatican. The bishop designated the other church as a non-parish church. 

“My predecessor merged two parishes together, but he kept the two churches open,” Paprocki told Arroyo. “And so when the Holy Father, in his motu proprio Traditionis custodes, said that you can’t have the Traditional Latin Mass at a parochial church, I simply designated one of those churches as non-parochial. And so therefore, we’re in compliance with that decree.”

Archbishop Naumann noted that the Diocese of Kansas City has not been greatly affected by the Vatican’s orders because there are two Traditional Latin Mass communities operated by FSSP, which has a dispensation from the Vatican.

“I would say the people in those communities, I find them to be very sincere,” Naumann said. “And they love the Lord, they love the Church, they love the Eucharist. I think what the pope was trying initially to correct is, there was an attitude, I think, amongst some, that there was a superiority [of] the Tridentine Mass, to the Novus Ordo, and I think that was an error. But I don’t think that’s how most people in those communities see things. And I think they’re confused by the limitations that are being put upon even bishops in making pastoral judgments.”

You can watch Arroyo’s full interview with Bishop Paprocki and Archbishop Naumann here.

[…]

Washington D.C., Mar 18, 2021 / 11:01 am (CNA).- The House on Wednesday voted to remove the deadline for the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, attempting to allow its ratification nearly 40 years after the original deadline. 

The joint resolution removing the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) deadline passed 222-204 on a largely party-line vote, with four Republicans joining Democrats in support. 

The ERA prohibits sex discrimation, stating that “[e]quality of rights under law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” The U.S. bishops’ conference (USCCB) is among those who have opposed the measure, arguing it could be interpreted to allow taxpayer-funded of abortion and overturn abortion restrictions. 

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List, said in a statement on Wednesday that the ERA “may as well be called the Abortion Rights Act, as it would usher in extreme policy implications by enshrining a ‘right’ to abortion in the U.S. Constitution alongside the foundational principles of our great nation.” 

“Its ratification would mean the indefinite blocking of state and federal policy to protect the rights of children in the womb,” Dannenfelser said. 

In their March 12 letter to members of Congress, the USCCB praised the amendment’s goal of ensuring “just wages and the fair treatment of women,” but they warned it would go far beyond that and require government funding of abortion. Two states’ versions of the ERA have already done just that, the USCCB noted.  

It could also threaten conscience protections of religious groups opposed to abortion, the conference warned, if the amendment was interpreted to make abortion a “right.”

Although Congress approved the amendment, it was never ratified by the 38 states necessary to add it to the U.S. Constitution. The original congressionally-mandated deadline for its ratification expired in 1982, but some states, including Virginia, have ratified the amendment in recent years. Supporters of the ERA say those ratifications – in addition to the previous state votes to ratify the amendment – should all count. 

According to CNN, some of the states that recently voted to ratify the Amendment sued the archivist of the United States last year in order to push for the ratification of the ERA as the 28th Amendment to the Constitution.

A federal judge dismissed the case earlier this month, writing that the congressionally-mandated deadline had long expired. “Plaintiffs’ ratifications came after both the original and extended deadlines that Congress attached to the ERA, so the Archivist is not bound to record them as valid,” Judge Rudolph Contreras wrote.

Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-Ind.), who opposed the House measure on Wednesday, said it “is not about equality or women’s rights.” 

“It’s about enshrining unrestricted abortion in the Constitution and allowing full taxpayer funding for abortion,” Walorski said. “That’s why I voted no. Now is not the time to weaken pro-life protections. Now is the time to defend the unborn and uphold the sanctity of life.”

In a statement, Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-N.J.), who supported the measure, said she recalled learning about the amendment “when I was in kindergarten.” 

“We’ve been debating a version of this amendment for almost 100 years, since it was authored by a New Jersey woman named Alice Paul,” Sherrill said. “The fact that the effort to enshrine women’s rights in the Constitution has been so long and hard is not surprising, but I’m proud that with this vote we continue that work. I hope the Senate will join us in paving the way to finally ratify the Equal Rights Amendment after all this time.

[…]